Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

In Full Tilt's tournament guide, Andy Bloch has a chart (which he says Ferguson also came up with simultaneously and independently) showing what stack sizes should push or fold / call push in a SB v BB game. See p 98-99.

It is the same chart Chen and Ankenman published in Mathematics of Poker. See Jam or Fold tables at p. 136

After conversion, the numbers are different than the S-C numbers. (The Bloch/Chen numbers are expressed in Big Blinds, the S-C in small blinds minus 1 big blind). To convert the numbers, you either double Bloch's and subtract 1, or add 1 to S-C and halve it.

Bloch says his table is more realistic than the S-C numbers. In the S-C game, the BB knows the SB's hand. In Bloch's game the BB does not have perfect information. Bloch says this is more like real poker. As a result, Bloch says suited connected semi-bluffing cards are devalued in the S-C perfect information game.

Has this been discussed? Has David commented on Bloch's game or responded to Bloch's commentary?

Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

If you actually read DS's book, you'll find that he explains the S-C numbers are only a guide, which you should adapt to your particular opponent and situation. He also gives a basic idea of how to adapt them to real life scenarios.

Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you actually read DS's book, you'll find that he explains the S-C numbers are only a guide, which you should adapt to your particular opponent and situation. He also gives a basic idea of how to adapt them to real life scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure do make a lot of assumptions. Of course I have read Sklansky's book. Who doesn't know to adjust to your foes. Who doesn't know push-fold strategy is optimal only at stack sizes of 10-13 BB or less.

My question had nothing to do with the PRACTICAL application of either S-C or Bloch's numbers, which is all your reply addressed.

This is a poker THEORY board. Sklansky created a SB-BB jam or fold game (and Chubokov ran the numbers). Bloch, Ferguson, Chen and Ankenman created a different SB-BB jam or fold game, which Bloch contends is more realistic than Sklansky's game.

My question is whether Sklansky has addressed the criticism of the contstruct of his game.

Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

Sklansky states in his book that the S-C number for the "robust" hands (like suited connectors) should be higher because a hand like J2o probably won't call when you shove with 87s. He doesn't change his chart to account for this, but his chart wasn't designed to inform you when to push with hand x. It just shows that you can't lose money when your stack size is =< the S-C numbers and your opponent only calls a push when he's ahead.

Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

IIRC, the SC numbers were only supposed to be a rough guide anyway, and more specifically, DS mentioned that a lot of the numbers are effectively underestimated in regards to standard practice. The perfect information bit is kind of rediculous anyway.

Using SNGPT-type approaches (more exploitative push/fold strategies like those mentioned) are generally more effective.

There were a few SC number threads trying to address the SC problems, including one of mine a ways back, and there was never really a good defense. I don't remember DS addressing the issue offhand at any point.

Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

The correct way to interpret the SC numbers is that if they say a push is correct in the perfect information game, then folding is dominated by moving all in in the real game, but if they say folding is correct in the perfect information game, then that says nothing about the real game. The numbers therefore do not suggest an actual strategy, and so comparing them with jam or fold unexploitable strategies is comparing apples and oranges.

Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

Yes, SC numbers are pretty much a threshold for 'when not to fold', and that's about it.

Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

One of the advantages of SC-type numbers is that you can calculate them without necessarily solving the game. For example, I think it's not feasible to solve push-or-fold Kansas City Lowball (too many different hand matchups) but you can still calculate S-C analogues for individual hands.

It just happens that it is feasible to solve push-or-fold NLHE, so the S-C numbers aren't as useful.

Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

[ QUOTE ]
Has this been discussed? Has David commented on Bloch's game or responded to Bloch's commentary?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is rare to see David comment on other authors, but I assume that Mason has already hired a hitman to get even with Bloch.

On the more serious side, I'd like to know if A4s is rated correctly in Bloch's tables. It looks like a serious typo to me, especially if you compare the number with A5s and A3s. The problem with such typos is twofold. Finding them is one part, figuring out the right numbers is the other.

Re: Sklansky-Chubukov numbers attacked
 

A4s seems to be correct in the MOP tables, at least i cant spot anything out of line.

Push: A5s-A3s: >50
Call A5s: 30.1, A4s: 25.6,A3s: 24.7

What is A4s value in Blochs table?